Citation NR: 9607495
Decision Date: 03/25/96 Archive Date: 04/02/96
DOCKET NO. 91-38 714 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Chicago,
Illinois
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired
psychiatric disability.
2. Entitlement to service connection for essential
hypertension.
3. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
spastic colitis.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of
the United States
WITNESSES AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL
Appellant, his father and his wif
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
M. Siegel, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from July 1971 to July
1974.
This appeal initially came before the Board of Veterans’
Appeals (Board) from rating decisions of August 1989 and
October 1989, in which the Chicago, Illinois, Regional Office
(RO) confirmed and continued a noncompensable evaluation for
spastic colitis, and denied service connection for an
acquired psychiatric disability, respectively. By means of a
decision dated in April 1992, the Board requested additional
development of the record. In a rating action dated in
February 1993, the RO confirmed and continued its denials of
a compensable evaluation for spastic colitis and service
connection for an acquired psychiatric disability. In a
decision dated in March 1993, the RO denied service
connection for essential hypertension.
In July 1993, the veteran was accorded a hearing before a
Member of the Board, sitting in Chicago. By means of a
decision dated in April 1994, the Board again remanded this
case, in order to accomplish further evidentiary development.
In an August 1995 rating action, the RO again confirmed and
continued the noncompensable evaluation in effect for spastic
colitis.
REMAND
The veteran contends, in essence, that he has an acquired
psychiatric disability and essential hypertension as a result
of his active service, and that service connection
for these disorders is appropriate. He specifically alleges
that he had always been nervous “but not to the degree that I
was when I was in the service,” and that he was taking
medication for high blood pressure “within 60 days after I
got discharged” from service. With regard to his colitis, he
alleges that he has persistent stomach cramps and gas.
After a review of the complete medical record, it is the
opinion of the Board that further evidentiary development
must be accomplished prior to additional consideration of the
veteran’s claims. The Board acknowledges that these claims
have already been the subject of previous evidentiary
development; nonetheless, it is apparent that additional
development needs to be undertaken before the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) can consider these claims. In
particular, it is noted that the clinical record, and
specifically the veteran’s service medical records, show that
there may be an etiological relationship between the mental
problems for which he had been accorded treatment, and his
hypertension and spastic colitis. His service medical
records include a report of medical history, dated in January
1971, in which a history of colitis secondary to nervousness
is noted. A service medical record dated in September 1972
notes that colitis was sometimes caused by stress and
anxiety, while a May 1974 service treatment record cites the
presence of diarrhea when the veteran was nervous or tense.
Likewise, a VA treatment record dated in May 1975,
approximately ten months following his separation from
service, shows that he had complaints of nervousness, that he
had nausea and vomiting, and that his diastolic pressure was
twice recorded as 100. In view of the fact that service
connection has already been established for colitis, but not
for an acquired psychiatric disability or hypertension, the
Board believes that findings derived from a period of
observation and evaluation at a VA medical facility would be
helpful in determining whether the veteran’s psychiatric
problems, hypertension and colitis are manifestations, or
part and parcel, of a single disability, whether any two of
these disorders are etiologically related, or whether these
disorders are in fact etiologically unrelated to each other.
In addition, the Board notes that the July 1993 hearing held
in Chicago was before a Board Member who is no longer
associated with the Board. Since that Board
Member is no longer available to decide the veteran’s claims,
the RO should therefore ascertain, in conjunction with the
development requested herein, whether the veteran desires a
hearing before another Member of the Board, either at the RO
or in Washington, D.C. It should be pointed out to the
veteran that the transcript of that July 1993 hearing has
been associated with his claims folders, and will be reviewed
by whichever Board Member considers his claims.
In view of the foregoing, therefore, this case is REMANDED
for the following:
1. The RO should request that the
veteran furnish the names and addresses
of all health care providers who have
accorded him treatment for mental
problems, hypertension and colitis from
May 1995 to the present, along with duly-
executed authorization for the release of
medical records, if appropriate.
2. Upon receipt of such information and
authorization, the RO should request that
all health care providers identified by
the veteran furnish legible copies of all
medical records compiled in conjunction
with treatment accorded him from May 1995
to the present for mental problems,
hypertension and colitis.
3. Thereafter, the RO should request
that the veteran undergo a period of
observation and evaluation at a VA
hospital. In the course of this
hospitalization, the attending physicians
should be specifically requested to
determine whether his mental disorder,
hypertension and spastic colitis are, in
essence, manifestations, or part and
parcel, of a single disability, or
whether they are in fact separate
disabilities. All tests indicated are to
be conducted at this time. In
particular, the veteran’s claims folders
are to be made available to the attending
physicians prior to their observation and
assessment of the veteran. All findings,
and the reasons and bases therefor,
should be set forth in a clear,
comprehensive and legible manner on the
hospitalization summary or evaluation
report produced as a result of this
period of observation and evaluation.
4. Following completion of the above,
the RO should review the veteran’s
claims, and determine whether service
connection for an acquired psychiatric
disability and hypertension can now be
granted, in view of the findings shown on
the report of observation and evaluation,
or whether either or both disabilities,
along with the veteran’s service-
connected spastic colitis, are in fact
part and parcel of a single disability.
In addition, at this time the RO should
also determine, if necessary, whether an
increased rating for spastic colitis can
now be granted. If the decision remains
in whole or in part adverse to the
veteran, he and his representative should
be furnished with a supplemental
statement of the case, and with a
reasonable period of time within which to
respond thereto. The case should
thereafter be returned to the Board for
further consideration, as warranted.
5. Prior to the return of the case to
the Board, the RO should also inquire of
the veteran as to whether he desires
another hearing before a Member of the
Board, either at the RO or in Washington,
D.C., in view of the fact that the Board
Member who heard the July 1993 hearing at
the Chicago RO is no longer with the
Board. The RO should point out to the
veteran that the transcript of that
hearing is of record, and will be
reviewed by the Board Member who
considers his case
The veteran need take no action until he is so informed. The
purposes of this REMAND are to obtain additional evidence and
to ensure compliance with due process considerations.
LAWRENCE M. SULLIVAN
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, 741
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to
be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the
Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)
(1995).
- 2 -